5 ms·

Caveat: I'm not 100% sure on my stance, personally. Most arguments (for or against) net neutrality appear based on assumptions I don't agree with. The priority

by jpttsn 9y ago

Caveat: I'm not 100% sure on my stance, personally. Most arguments (for or against) net neutrality appear based on assumptions I don't agree with. The priority internet argument seems simple: It's the ISP's cables, and they should by default be able to make whatever deals they want, just as I can make unbalanced deals around who gets to use my car or headphones. But then there's the "common carrier" issue. If the ISPs want that status, they should be held to its implications, which roughly equals net neutrality. Priority internet with common carrier status is just ISP's having their cake and eating it too. That's what's on the table as I understand it, and I can't endorse it. It's just a money/power grab. But I'm not sure whether neutral internet with common carrier status is morally better than priority internet without common carrier. There's maybe a productive conversation to be had there. Edit: got words mixed up

rmc 9y ago
In many ways, you're not allowed "do what you want" with your car or headphones. For example it would be illegal to work as a taxi driver and say "I don't pick up black people"
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Nit: the NYC taxi rules make no mention of race in their rules. They cover in depth payment, route selection, luggage etc but nothing about race. They have a lengthy list of acceptable reasons not to accept a passenger, many of which could be used to reject outright any person hailing the cab that the driver personally did not want to carry. Unless the racism occurred against a disabled person, it seems totally possible for a taxi driver to freely discriminate in their selection of passengers. So 'illegal' seems a strong word.
  - andrewla 9y ago
    The rules are actually pretty strict for what can constitute legal refusal of a fare [1]. 54-20(b)(2), "The Passenger is carrying or is in possession of any article, package, case or container which the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the Vehicle" and 54-20(b)(9) "The passenger is disorderly or intoxicated" are really the only rules that have a subjective component. [1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_54.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_..., see S 54-20
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      ...and yet, it's only four letters to spell 'race'. And its not there, anywhere. So easy to have said 'drivers will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion' or some such. And they didn't say it.
      - rmc 9y ago
        However, if the law says "You must pick up a passenger under [SMALL LIST OF EXCPETIONS]", then you basically are banned from excluding people on the basis of their race, right? *(NB I'm not USAian, and don't know much about US taxis)

by jpttsn 9y ago

rmc 9y ago

In many ways, you're not allowed "do what you want" with your car or headphones. For example it would be illegal to work as a taxi driver and say "I don't pick up black people"

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Nit: the NYC taxi rules make no mention of race in their rules. They cover in depth payment, route selection, luggage etc but nothing about race. They have a lengthy list of acceptable reasons not to accept a passenger, many of which could be used to reject outright any person hailing the cab that the driver personally did not want to carry. Unless the racism occurred against a disabled person, it seems totally possible for a taxi driver to freely discriminate in their selection of passengers. So 'illegal' seems a strong word.
- andrewla 9y ago
  The rules are actually pretty strict for what can constitute legal refusal of a fare [1]. 54-20(b)(2), "The Passenger is carrying or is in possession of any article, package, case or container which the Driver reasonably believes will cause damage to the Vehicle" and 54-20(b)(9) "The passenger is disorderly or intoxicated" are really the only rules that have a subjective component. [1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_chapter_54.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/rule_book_current_..., see S 54-20
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    ...and yet, it's only four letters to spell 'race'. And its not there, anywhere. So easy to have said 'drivers will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion' or some such. And they didn't say it.
    - rmc 9y ago
      However, if the law says "You must pick up a passenger under [SMALL LIST OF EXCPETIONS]", then you basically are banned from excluding people on the basis of their race, right? *(NB I'm not USAian, and don't know much about US taxis)